need some advice

[Hindsey123]

picked up another cart Yref-dog 3002 picked up for 25$. Needs a new motor and clutch. I ended up getting a brand new briggs 900 series for 60$. now I am trying to figure out what I want to get for a clutch. I will post the link for the two I am looking at and maybe someone here can tell me if there is any real difference between them. (
1). http://www.ebay.com/itm/COMET-TORQU...538846&hash=item5423027d08:g:RbMAAMXQTT9Ru8dN

(2). http://www.ebay.com/itm/GO-KART-TOR...048087?hash=item2a4482c857:g:j3YAAOSw9LxZrQ48

I know both are 30 series but one says heavy duty any advice is appreciated thanks guys.

 

[Kleyny]

The engine shaft size is different.
One is a 1" shaft and the other is a 3/4" shaft.

I know nothing about brigs motors so I can't help you with which one you need.

 

[Hellion]

Plus, they utilize, depending on the tooth count on the sprockets, two different kinds of chain; #40/41 is considerably beefier than #35 chain.

I know nothing about brigs motors so I can't help you with which one you need.

There's plenty of Briggs engines in Australia so your lackluster knowledge is one of life's greatest tragedies.

 

[OzFab]

Indeed. In fact, our largest & oldest lawn mower manufacturer, Victa, is now owned by B&S...

 

[bob58o]

Plus, they utilize, depending on the tooth count on the sprockets, two different kinds of chain; #40/41 is considerably beefier than #35 chain.

#40 is beefier than #35. #420 is beefier than #35. #41 has a slightly higher max working load than #35

 

[Hellion]

#40 is beefier than #35. #420 is beefier than #35. #41 has a slightly higher max working load than #35

Can I get the tensile strength of each measured in lb/in²?

 

[bob58o]

Can I get the tensile strength of each measured in lb/in²?

#35 is "not so beefy" in lb/in^2
#41 is "a bit beefy" in lb/ in ^2
#40 is "beefy" in lb/ in^2
#420 is "more beefy" in lb/ in^2

 

[itsid]

#40 is beefier than #35. #420 is beefier than #35. #41 has a slightly higher max working load than #35

NOPE

#35 is "not so beefy" in lb/in^2
#41 is "a bit beefy" in lb/ in ^2
#40 is "beefy" in lb/ in^2
#420 is "more beefy" in lb/ in^2

Still not

[OCM chain tensile strength in lb]
#41 is the weakest of all listed chains (typically 1500 lb) [2392]
followed by
#35 with 1760lb [2602],
#40 is a lot better with 3125 lb [4300]
and best is
420 with with no less than 3700 lb (4300+ lb is common for motorcycle chain that size, 420 SH black sport from EK has a tensile strength of 5200 lb)

So yeah, #41 sucks basically, given that it's the same size (pitch, roller and width) as 420

'sid

 

[bob58o]

NOPE

Still not

[OCM chain tensile strength in lb]
#41 is the weakest of all listed chains (typically 1500 lb) [2392]
followed by
#35 with 1760lb [2602],
#40 is a lot better with 3125 lb [4300]
and best is
420 with with no less than 3700 lb (4300+ lb is common for motorcycle chain that size, 420 SH black sport from EK has a tensile strength of 5200 lb)

So yeah, #41 sucks basically, given that it's the same size (pitch, roller and width) as 420

'sid

We've had this discussion before.
You said you hadn't seen "Working Load" specs prior.
Since working load means working and tensile strength means not working.... In correct order of usable strength....
http://www.ocm.co.jp/en/pro/roller/03_01_03.pdf
http://www.ocm.co.jp/en/pro/roller/03_01_04.pdf
http://www.ocm.co.jp/en/pro/roller/03_01_04.pdf

#35 is 419lbs max working load, 2602 lb tensile strength
#41 is 463lbs max wl, 2392 lb ts
#40 is 860 lbs max working load, 4300 lb tensile strength.

I was obviously joking when using those units (inch pound per square inch).

#35 has a higher average tensile strength than #41, but lower max working load. Which I don't understand.
http://www.gizmology.net/sprockets.htm

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

*shrugs* your guess is as good as mine..
haven't seen a table with working load so far..all websites I checked only list tensile strength

Anywhoo, working load is the BETTER thing to judge by (since tensile strength met means chain needs replacement)

but frankly judging by the difference (which as always depends on the mfg as well)
I'd say same thing.. (and it doesn't really matter if you go by one or the other value)

'sid

 

[itsid]

We've had this discussion before.
Since working load means working and tensile strength means not working....

yeah not quite
Working load has an embedded risk factor (the chance of a failing rivet/pin/plate..whatever)
it has nothing to do with "movement" of the chain I'm afraid

Working loads IIRC are only calculated values of tensile strength over a specific length and said risk factor
(say three feet.. IDK but something alike)
and since #35 needs more links to span that length it has a higher risk of failing (thus the total working load drops)
might also be possible (I can't seem to verify that) the risk factor for
the #35 chain is just different (higher) than the one for a #41 chain ..
Anyways.. working load is a calculated value only (tensile strength by risk factor)

wheras tensile strength is measured over a specifc number of links (usually just one, not more than maybe five I guess)

So yeah..
I still disagree

well at least in parts..
working load is basically the "guaranteed to work up to..." value whereas
tensile strength is the "guaranteed to fail above..." value

I guess it only depends on what you want to choose by
but since one is just a calculated value with some safety factor (that's IDk guessed?, averaged over IDK how many chains...?)
I'd rather go with the measured value tbh.

'sid

 

[bob58o]

It's ok to change your mind. It is allowed.

I'd rather go with the measured value tbh.

'sid

Anywhoo, working load is the BETTER thing to judge by (since tensile strength met means chain needs replacement)

'sid

 

[itsid]

What I said -or rather WANTED to say- was go by work load not tensile strength if you pick a chain for a given min load requirement.
And that still holds true!
I doubt you can pull on any of those chains with 2000lbs of force and expect it to still work afterwards.

I too thought it's indeed "in rest" or "while moving" numbers.. it's NOT..
after some more reading about working loads and their differences to tensile strengths and such,
I now know better.. it's a calculation with a coefficient for failure (which I do not know how that's created)
So there... I learned something in the last (almost) 2 years, who'd thunk
And I still say the #35 is the stronger (but likely less reliable) chain of the two

But in the end those numbers are fluctuating anyways to say the least.
depends on the mfg more than anything else..
high quality #35 will easily outperform crappy chinesium cheese grade #40 chain
in both tensile strength and work load.

And after all:
#35 or #41 isn't really the question IMHO (to me they're "same same just different" in that regard)
My point is: #41 is a weakling compared to the same size 420..
and THAT would be the chain to use IMHO

'sid

 

[OzFab]

Is working load vs tensile strength really that important? The dude just wants to know what chain to use...

 

[itsid]

Is working load vs tensile strength really that important? The dude just wants to know what chain to use...

Nope it's not.. just like it wasn't the last time we talked about that
but we like to go "full nerd" every once in a while

'sid

 

[Kleyny]

There's plenty of Briggs engines in Australia so your lackluster knowledge is one of life's greatest tragedies. [/QUOTE]

Tragedy? Maybe for some but not for me lol.

Most of my motor sport has been in motor cross, 4X4 or speedway, only have delved into the stationary engine motor sport since I bought a chinese go kart roughly 12 months ago.

It's been a fun playing with the GX clones.
Maybe one day a friend will come to me with a briggs for me to play with.

 

[Hellion]

picked up another cart Yerf-dog 3002 picked up for 25$ Needs a new motor and clutch. I ended up getting a brand new briggs 900 series for 60$...

Hey dude. What's the diameter of the engine's output shaft or PTO? I could guess, I could assume but I don't like to do that.

Get the torque converter that is designed for the drive shaft diameter you have and go for the heavier chain, especially for that particular kart of yours.

 

[Hindsey123]

this has been an entertaining thread lol i understand i need to match the bore to my shaft size and i understand chains and bearings very well i am a millwright mechanic work with that stuff a lot i am still learning about gear reduction through adding jack shafts and through the use of a TC i was trying to figure out if one of those is really HEAVY DUTY or if it was just a marketing thing and if it is heavy duty what is the difference springs? weights? belt diameter? thanks for all the info guys and my shaft is a 1" as far as chain i am using 40 chain it does everything i need it to and its free to me.

 

[OzFab]

Maybe one day a friend will come to me with a briggs for me to play with.

I had a small (2hp) B&S flatty thrown in with a recent deal which I currently have no use for; granted, it doesn't have a mechanical governor (it has a vane type) but, it's yours if you want it to play with...

Other than that, find yourself an old B&S powered mower, same concept just different orientation...

 

[Kleyny]

I had a small (2hp) B&S flatty thrown in with a recent deal which I currently have no use for; granted, it doesn't have a mechanical governor (it has a vane type) but, it's yours if you want it to play with...

Other than that, find yourself an old B&S powered mower, same concept just different orientation...

Thanks for the offer mate.

Next time I'm down your way I'll give you a PM.